KAIROS, Alternatives, CIDA and trouble with radical advocacy

Published January 13, 2010

The intense debate (and some crude political mudslinging) over government funding for KAIROS and Alternatives is indicative of a much wider discussion over the role of powerful civil society groups that combine radical political agendas with humanitarian aid. Like Canada, a number of European governments are also struggling with the problems posed by funding such activist organizations, and the outcome of the Canadian...

Story Comments (4)

02/10/10 at 10:02 pm

By robert mitchell

Yes, to the previous comments.
I was seriously considering paying for a subscription to The Embassy. It fills a hole, a gap in the reporting in Ottawa that the big newspapers don't fill. Many others in the international development community might have shared that perception. I would assume that this niche reporting is part of your business strategy.

No. I won't subscribe.

Sure, publish Steinburg's opinions, but (repeat but), get a companion rebuttal to his very strong, and very biased opinions BEFORE and only if you publish his piece. His piece is more appropriate in a blog, on his own turf/website. But then you wily editors have conned me into replying. If so, good move.

Informed discussion of the KAIROS, Alternatives, and Rights and Democracy issues are important. One-sided, and libelous opinions might work to stimulate discussion - is this part your business strategy? Or is his diatribe just part of your biased editorial policy on the selection of opinion pieces ? Please clarify.

(And, as you know, it is very unlikely that the NGO community will be able to collectively find the resources or time to pursue a libel case against him or you. Again, a good move.)

I have worked with NGOs for 30 years or more on many continents. Sure there are some sharks as in any group of thousands. But the ones that informed donors support do fine work.

Steinburg's libelous comments are utter CRAP.

01/20/10 at 12:01 am

By STEVE SMITH

Seems like Gerald has bad case of tunnel vision that prevents him from seeing the utter hypocrisy of his arguments. Here's a neat game: try substituting "Kairos"/ "Alternatives" and "anti-Israel" with "NGO Monitor" and "anti-Palestine" and PRESTO - Radical advocacy a la NGO Monitor!

01/19/10 at 10:01 pm

By Shelley Cooper-Stephenson

I am appalled that Embassy magazine would publish this extremely one-sided and biased opinion by an academic who clearly has no real understanding of the work of KAIROS in particular, and has mis-stated some of its official positions, in my understanding of them. Further, the writer appears to be unfamiliar with civil justice initiatives. The quality of Embassy's articles is usually of a much higher intellectual calibre. I hope they remain so.

01/13/10 at 11:01 am

By MJ PROULX

Shame on Embassy for publishing such a transparently biased and misleading opinion. While there might be a case for limiting government funding of NGOs to a certain percentage of their total annual budget, Mr. Steinberg's argument against what he perceives as the mission of certain NGOs is both ill-informed, obtuse, and contrary to fundamental Canadian principles: pluralism of ideas, freedom of expression, and duty to assist (both domestically and abroad).

If Mr. Steinberg truly believes that "very little if anything is accomplished" by NGOs, he should resign as head of NGO Monitor immediately to avoid further compromising the credibility of his organization.

KAIROS, Alternatives, CIDA and trouble with radical advocacy

To view the rest of this article, please choose one of the following:

Story Comments (4)

Inside Defence

Chatter House

Embassy Twitter Updates